Democratic polling firm says Obama would lose if vote today

[Hayabusa Rider]

It is there. Just don't vote for any of the candidates.

The nice thing about having that as an explicit choice is that it provides a way of quantifying and giving voice to the dissatisfaction of choices provided. People would generally like that.

The bad thing is that it provides a way of quantifying and giving voice to the dissatisfaction of choices provided. Parties and their partisans would generally not like that.

 

[ProfJohn]

Isn't part of the problem with polls at this point in the race that one choice is MUCH more well known than the others? Obama is the President, and the public is very well acquainted with him, for better or worse. If they don't like him, the alternative candidates can very easily become blank slates that are just "not Obama" because they don't know a ton about them.

I guess the question is whether people are voting for Romeny or against Obama.

Since most re-election turn into yes/no votes for the incumbent it is likely that people are voting against Obama. Especially since his approval numbers are similar to the poll results.


The recent Rasmussen reports poll is full of a bad news for Obama:
Obama 41 Ron Paul 37
Obama 44 Giuliani 39
"But the real story in the numbers is that the president continues to earn between 41% and 49% of the vote no matter which Republican is mentioned as a potential opponent. This suggests that the race remains a referendum on the incumbent more than anything else."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...12_presidential_election/obama_41_ron_paul_37

It is still very early, but these polls should be a big wake up call to Democrats.

These polls also put in place some frame work at which to guess the outcome next year. It is very clear that if the economy stays in its current state that Obama will lose. Obama's only hope of winning is for a drastic improvement in the economy and there are no signs that such improvement is going to happen.

 

[NeoV]

if you put stock in any poll that shows Ron Paul within 4 points of Obama, you're an idiot

The only thing to interpret here, which should be no surprise to anyone at all given our current economy, is that incumbents don't do well when the economy is tanking

doesn't matter who is on what side, period.

/thread

 

[nyker96]

Nice, but does it say Republicans will win?

 

[fskimospy]

I guess the question is whether people are voting for Romeny or against Obama.

Since most re-election turn into yes/no votes for the incumbent it is likely that people are voting against Obama. Especially since his approval numbers are similar to the poll results.


The recent Rasmussen reports poll is full of a bad news for Obama:
Obama 41 Ron Paul 37
Obama 44 Giuliani 39
"But the real story in the numbers is that the president continues to earn between 41% and 49% of the vote no matter which Republican is mentioned as a potential opponent. This suggests that the race remains a referendum on the incumbent more than anything else."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...12_presidential_election/obama_41_ron_paul_37

It is still very early, but these polls should be a big wake up call to Democrats.

These polls also put in place some frame work at which to guess the outcome next year. It is very clear that if the economy stays in its current state that Obama will lose. Obama's only hope of winning is for a drastic improvement in the economy and there are no signs that such improvement is going to happen.

Nate Silver on Rasmussen: 'Rasmussen polls were biased and inaccurate' (2010)
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...rate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

Rasmussen frequently polls Republican candidates better than others, which is why it's now considered a right wing polling organization. Shockingly enough, right wing pollsters show right wing candidates in better light.

You keep being told that polls a year and a half out are meaningless, but somehow you think if you just post enough of them that it will somehow change. It won't.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

1. A poll right now is meaningless.
2. Obama is the incumbant... Even though he sucks at being president it's still an advantage for him
3. The current slate of Rebublican candidates is well... pretty shitty. All the real/serious candidates are waiting for '16.

 

[ProfJohn]

You keep being told that polls a year and a half out are meaningless, but somehow you think if you just post enough of them that it will somehow change. It won't.

They are not meaningless.

They are a snap shot of what the country is thinking today. And today they would pick Romeny over Obama.

From that we can reason that Obama will lose next year UNLESS the mode or state of the country improves. That is about the only reasonable thing you can take from these polls. Obama is in trouble and he needs to do something to change the 'game' or else he will lose.

 

[fskimospy]

They are not meaningless.

They are a snap shot of what the country is thinking today. And today they would pick Romeny over Obama.

From that we can reason that Obama will lose next year UNLESS the mode or state of the country improves. That is about the only reasonable thing you can take from these polls. Obama is in trouble and he needs to do something to change the 'game' or else he will lose.

No we can't reason that he will lose next year unless the mode or state of the country improves. If you knew anything about electoral politics you would never say something so dumb.

Do you ever stop and wonder why you're so bad at predicting elections?

 

[IGBT]

your obama is bad for business and every body on both sides of the isle knows it.

 

[trenchfoot]

I guess the question is whether people are voting for Romeny or against Obama.

Since most re-election turn into yes/no votes for the incumbent it is likely that people are voting against Obama. Especially since his approval numbers are similar to the poll results.


The recent Rasmussen reports poll is full of a bad news for Obama:
Obama 41 Ron Paul 37
Obama 44 Giuliani 39
"But the real story in the numbers is that the president continues to earn between 41% and 49% of the vote no matter which Republican is mentioned as a potential opponent. This suggests that the race remains a referendum on the incumbent more than anything else."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...12_presidential_election/obama_41_ron_paul_37

It is still very early, but these polls should be a big wake up call to Democrats.

These polls also put in place some frame work at which to guess the outcome next year. It is very clear that if the economy stays in its current state that Obama will lose. Obama's only hope of winning is for a drastic improvement in the economy and there are no signs that such improvement is going to happen.

And this is why the repubs are doing every single thing they can in a concerted campaign to sabotage any meaningful effort to help the country recover. It's in their best interests to keep the economy in that deep abyss right where they put us when Bush Corp. and their rubber stamping repub controlled Congress had the nation by the lug nuts.

 

[sportage]

Here is a Democratic polling firm saying that Obama would lose to Romney is the election was held today.

We are still a year away from the election. And Obama is in BIG trouble.

Bull...

 

[Demo24]

They are not meaningless.

They are a snap shot of what the country is thinking today. And today they would pick Romeny over Obama.

From that we can reason that Obama will lose next year UNLESS the mode or state of the country improves. That is about the only reasonable thing you can take from these polls. Obama is in trouble and he needs to do something to change the 'game' or else he will lose.

Wrong, it is a snapshot of who would vote for whom from July 15th. 10 days ago from now, and they polled all of 2 days if that. Somehow getting 1000 people to bother answering the phones or answering online.

These polls are pretty meaningless because: a)over a week old b)short sampling time c)they don't provide demographics. C is the MOST important because most of the people polled in these things are old bored people who get a kick out of a robo-voice calling them on the telephone. They suggest they do quota sampling, but provide no statistics on this so it's impossible to know. However typically the only people that bother to answer polls are older individuals or people that feel incredible strongly.

I also want to say significantly more conservatives answer these than liberals, but I can't back it up.


Eitherway, these polls hold significantly less weight than you want them to. However they provide you with another excuse to spam up the boards with this stuff.

 

[Double Trouble]

The election next year is going to be like just about every election where there is an incumbent against someone else: it's a referendum on how the people like the incumbent. Right now the economy sucks and Obama's numbers reflect it.

What I found interesting wasn't really the bad numbers (that's more the economy than anything Obama is doing). I thought the big negative numbers from independents interesting. We knew the republicans would dislike him, and we knew the democrats would like him. The independents are now swinging in a major way toward "anyone but him". If that remains the case, he's toast. If not, he'll win in a landslide.

I still don't see anyone on the republican side that I think can match Obama in terms of creating enthusiasm among his base and getting more people to vote.

 

[JD50]

Please find a purpose in life besides spamming the Republican party to AT P&N. I said please...

:thumbsup:

Seriously, who gives a fuck?

 

[badb0y]

The policies of the government influence and effect the economy and Obama is the head of the federal executive branch, the one who signs off on laws, the position that has a great deal of influence over the rest of the government, you know, that guy? Fool.

Nope wrong, the President and Congress do not control the expansion or contraction of the economy, the policies they make may have a dampening effect on them but ultimately it's not so much that one can say that the President or anyone in the government actually controls the economy.

Most of us realize that the President doesn't control the economy. However, we realize that the economy does control the President.

For right or wrong, the President is always getting the credit or blame.

Fern

If a person only read these forums and nothing else he or she would think that the President controls everything which is obviously false.

 

[DominionSeraph]

They are a snap shot of what the country is thinking today. And today they would pick Romeny over Obama.

Meaningless poll response != real decision.

Romney got 9 points higher in votes for President than he did for "Favorable opinion."

Obama only got 48% against Michelle Bachmann, who was only 29% favorable. (When Obama's favorable job performance is at 46%.) 29% favorable, yet you think in a real election 41% would vote for her for President?

Check yourself against probability before you post.

Here, watch My Little Pony instead of spamming stupid propaganda. It'd be a much better use of your time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeJ6-gN0eB4

 

[matt0611]

Nope wrong, the President and Congress do not control the expansion or contraction of the economy, the policies they make may have a dampening effect on them but ultimately it's not so much that one can say that the President or anyone in the government actually controls the economy.

If a person only read these forums and nothing else he or she would think that the President controls everything which is obviously false.

Ding ding ding. Dampening effect.

I never said the President controls the economy. Those are your words. I said the President has a great deal of influence and effect on the economy depending on what policies they put in place and their tone.

In my estimation this President and his (and congresses of course) policies have had a severe negative effect on the economy. You may disagree with this.

Even if I'm wrong, the American people believe this to be true and if the economy is bad enough they will blame the President and people in congress.

 

[shortylickens]

Havent polls generally been WAY off in the past? Why do they keep taking them so seriously?